Is it fair to use ad blocking software?

Using Ad-Block seems only fair when the ads are REALLY annoying and the site does not need the ads. There are e.g. sites where I safe 50% of my time using adblocker, as I

A.: don't have to click away the ads.
B: can see what I wanted without waiting for partly 10 minutes of ads before it
C: don't have to use my virus scanner because of the potential malware in suspicious ads (with faked x-buttons e.g.)
D. don't have to close up to 25 pop-up windows because of 1 site

However, many sites know how to place advertisement in a way that its not as annoying as this, and many sites really life by ads, so I have addblocker disabled on very many sites, but on sites I view for the first time or which have really horrible ads I won't disable them in general. (Btw, I'm not native english speaking and I'm tired, whoever sees my mistakes... please just overlook them, too lazy to correct them. You can understand me after all, and thats what counts here.)

I would say it's ethical to BLOCK advertising, but not to alter or replace it.

You are paying for the bandwidth into your home so you are paying to have ads delivered to your home and thus have the right to block them. Now if you allow ads, (which is how content is paid for in many cases) you shouldn't have programs that alter or replace them with other ads because they didn't pay the provider for the ad placement.

It's my computer and I should be able to control what I download and what I see on my computer screen, websites do not deserve the right to control what data is on my hard drive nor what I'm viewing, they should be able to control what is theirs and if they don't want people viewing their websites with ad blockers then they can be stupid and stop people from viewing their sites with ad blocker. I think it's silly for people to be forced to download and view things they do not want to and if websites agree with it then it's completely fair. I think I wouldn't visit half the sites I do if ad blockers were banned.

I always block ads, no matter what. It's my computer, I am in control of what is allowed to be displayed on my computer screen. I don't care if it hurts your profits, as far as I'm concerned you are just another faceless corporation who will continue to make money wether I'm around or not. Your companies success is none of my concern.

I strongly believe that Adblockers are good and everyone should use them. Here is why:

1) Ads are not only annoying but also a serious security risk. Criminals regular abuse java-script or flash ads to distribute malware.

2) The Ad business is currently dominated by some major players whose market power will grow and who can obtain power over the content providers.

3) It is just now worse viewing Ads. A typical internet user generates less then 1 euro per month of money by consuming ads. One can view this euro as a donation to content providers (e.g. the websites you visit, the videos you watch). But I think it is just not worse my time to consume ads all month for such a small micropay.

As for the Websites I do think they should get some support for getting them running. But not with Ads. I would rather pay 1 or 2 Euros (or even up to 5 Euros) per month and let some trusted provider distribute the money among the content I consume then doing this micro payment via Ads. The only problem with this is, that there is no widely used infrastructure for micro payment on the internet. But I believe, if a majority would start using Adblockers people will come up with a solution on how to finance Websites. That is why I think that everyone should start using Adblockers right now.

I think it is horribly inconsiderate of people to completely disregard the well being of content creators. Content creators that make them smile. Content creators that are always there, making videos for them. Content creators doing good deeds such as raising money for charity, ect. How selfish do you have to be to watch their videos, getting amusement ect from it, then deny them their revenue? If you are horrible enough to use Ad Blockers, then shame on you. I am not a content creator, but I can still understand that people NEED an income. Please, turn off your Ad Blocker extension, show some love. And in honour of the Shia Labeouf meme, JUST DO IT!

Personally, I use ad blocking apps for google chrome because I prefer not to be spammed with pop-up ads.

And example of this is the nexusmods.com which is a place for video game modifications, they have an adblock detector that asks to turn off adblock, which I did, I went scrolling around for awhile on the site, then a window popped up and EXTREMELY loud music played, and my volume is always set at 10 for my laptop. So I put adblock up again.

You will understand when you have to pay for services that are free today.

I decide what is shown on my screen on the computer I purchased.

From another point of view, since I have no intention of buying any products, showing me ads would be just a waste of time. And a waste of my net traffic.

I would tolerate ads better if they were less obnoxious. Most of them are annoying, cheap looking, flashy loops.

If ads were more 'user friendly' I wouldn't resort to external programs for blocking them. First of all, sites that feature ads should present us with a quick survey to choose what kinds of ads are we interested about - with an option to choose none.
For simplicity these surveys would be linked to ad providers, not sites.

When we watch an ad we should be able to vote on them with likes/dislikes. Users who enabled ads should be able to filter them by their ratings to avoid the annoying ones. After watching an ad we should be able to mark them so they won't be showed in the future any time again.

In summary ads need to be optional to watch, should be sorted/updated/removed based on user feedback and have some reward for users who watch them. Like a site letting users download data faster based on how many ads they watch/click on.

Before that happens I will continue to use adblockers.

It is fair, but just as countermeasure for unfair ads. Because a lot of sites make certain abuse of advertisment, be it a billion banners, something opening new pages automatically or just very presistent ones. For example, I never block youtube ads, up to the point I see same 20-30 sec unskippable ad on EVERY video in my feed. To sum up: Either you use your ads responsively, or I use my tools responsively.

Well when a site bombards you with ads-- popup ads, ads with automatically playing video, ads with random sounds--then of course it's fair to use an ad-blocker. Ads nowadays interfere with the main content and can be really deceitful and encourage you to click on things that can harm your computer. So yeah, using ad-block is fair.

It is okay to block totaly annoying, useless and deceptive ads. Like the famous wrong DOWNLOAD button and most of the autoplaying video ads and delayed popups. Personally I deactivate my adblocker on such sites which politely ask me to do it if they got ads that are not annoying. Banners at the sides of message boards for example. Sites which completely try to make me watch there ads and which ban users using adblockers will I ban too, thus I never visit them again. Also too much acceptable ads will lead to an adblocker too (youtube for example - i don't want to watch 2 minutes ad every second video. Also these ads are annoingly loud in relation to the videos afterwards).

No, it is not fair to use AdBlock because you keep your favorite websites and maybe youtube content creators earn money from their hard work that gets to you FREE.

I use adblock until I like a site, then whitelist it. Same with YouTube channels.

It's fair, but it's all fair for a website to deny you access if you use such software.

Well first, think Banksy, the street artist whose art is popular all across the world, but has a philosophy that if company's can plaster our highways, public infrastructure, and basically every thing that has the potential to be seen my multiple people, then do people have a choice to look at it or not? Is it fair that people with money can pay to have their advertising wherever they want? The internet should be treated the same way. People should not be forced to see things "people with money" place in order to make a buck. Sure Facebook and a few other big companies make a couple bucks on advertising, but honestly, who really clicks those stupid internet ads anyway! If people (from any generation) haven't learned to avoid "click-bait" or that advertising itself influences you on a sub-conscience level, then take a communications class please. Just one class should teach you the affects of advertising and media influence and the strings they pull on each and every person. End Rant. But yeah, People should use ad-blocker if they don't want outside influence to shape their behavior.

The key issue on this debate is that ad makers have gotten more and more abusive with their ads. We've all experienced those ads that wont shut up and keep talking, most likely. If you like a content creator, disable adblock on their stuff, but on the question of ethical, I believe yes.

Definitely only in some cases. When there is a website than runs without an adblocker smoothly like Newgrounds, you should do some respect to turn your adblocker off. If ads are too irrelevant and innaporopiate, then you should turn the adblocker on.

I believe that it is completely fair to use ad blocking software, especially on public/non "pay to access" sites. I pay for my internet access, and therefore I should be able to control what enters my computer screen. Most advertisements I find these days are incredibly useless, mostly clickbait, and sometimes even malicious. I might have a different opinion, but most internet advertisements I find are being incredibly abusive of the fact that unlike in newspapers and billboards, I cannot simply "ignore" it. (The ones I can't skip on youtube, or the popups, or redirects).

I recognize the need for advertisers in order to keep internet content "free," but some websites will have two video ads running simultaneously, and/or so many ads attempting to load that the page freezes and you can't see/hear the content you specifically came to the website to see/hear. Come up with some reasonable limits on the amount of bandwidth and RAM that the ads on a given page can take up, and I'll get rid of my ad blocking software. Either that, or come up with some ad blocking software that initially lets me see all the ads, but then lets me selectively block the ones that are using too many resources so that I can access the content I came for.

Sometimes pop ups and sexually explicit advertisement can be really annoying and frustrating, when it comes to page redirecting. Adblock should block only the annoying adds, not the healthy ones that allow websites to exist.

I think it's fair, but only given the obstrusiveness and lack of regulation as to privacy control for ad networks. If ads were guaranteed to not be intrusive, and opting out of tracking were a simple and guaranteed process, then it would be a different case.

I choose to ask (and answer) a different question:

"Is it fair to manipulate people?"

"No."

Capital punishment for door-to-door salesmen, advertisers, missionaries and election campaigners, please.

My opinion is that it's right in few ocasions because if your (lets face it) on PORN then it might stop viruses but when its youtube, your basically being a jew, and not letting people profit from their job Thank you for reading

We could turn this one into multiple questions to make it easier to answer. Is it fair to force people to see ads? Is it fair to brainwash people against their wishes?

As an internet user, you should decide what you can see.

It's fair to use ad block because ads annoy anyone.

It's like watching a recorded TV episode. You should be allowed to skip the advertisements if you want to.

Why not? I think we can be able to block adds when we want! We just can choose if we want to support the website or anything else, or not!

I think it's fair to block ads, and then whitelist the websites you like and trust. If you don't, you could be supporting bad people with advertising revenue